The Architectural Program defines the requirements for a new Edmonton City Hall, and has been developed in response to the following objectives:

1. To improve public access to City Hall services.
2. To reduce the operational inefficiencies associated with the current dispersed pattern of accommodation.
3. To increase management effectiveness especially between corporate and department levels.
4. To reduce the long term costs of accommodating City Hall functions.
5. To provide the people of Edmonton with a widely acknowledged downtown landmark appropriate for a city evolving as one of the major urban centres in Western Canada.

The City Hall Competition encompasses both the City Hall site and Sir Winston Churchill Square, an existing but relatively undeveloped urban park. The City Hall site itself includes an outdoor Ceremonial Area associated with the Symbolic Entrance to the City Hall building. The purpose of the Competition is to produce a design concept for the proposed City Hall building and its major adjacent outdoor spaces. It is not intended that the design will be resolved to a great level of detail. In fact, the design must contain sufficient flexibility to allow for modification in City Hall functions over the course of the design process. The City of Edmonton has set the objective of developing a City Hall and urban park which will serve as a major civic focus. As the project will be the largest and most prominent development in an important downtown location, it is critical that it be integrated into the broader urban context.

(Competition brief excerpt)

***All the visual documentation is taken from the periodical "The Canadian Architect/March, 1981"

Jury comments

After the initial review, the submissions generated some early impressions from the Jury. Among these was the considerable influence of the suburban (and more importantly, the urban) shopping centre on institutional architecture. The quality and character of these spaces varied greatly, from vast, stark volumes to spaces of great complexity. The Regency-Hyatt Hotel solution with its dramatic and dynamic interior volume appeared frequently. There seemed to be a great interest in the diagonal, in all dimensions and a rediscovery of the triangle. All these approaches demonstrated a fairly sure grasp of these formal architectural ideas, but many did not rise above the conventional to the level of civic architecture. There appeared to be a certain hesitancy and indecision regarding the issues of ceremony, expression and celebration of the civic function.

Although there were no doctrinaire Post-Modern solutions, a number of submissions moved strongly in this direction; most notably, entry 006 - J. Michael Kirkland/Boigon Armstrong, with its layered and planar composition and subtle asymmetrical tensions and, to a lesser degree, entry 025 - Stinson Montgomery Sisam/Byfield Langford, with its subtly shifting axis in an otherwise symmetrical form.

If there was any hint of Post-Modernism in the submissions, it was the homage paid to symmetry/axiality and formal spatial progression. Even though the vocabulary is contemporary, is this formal compositional interpretation perceived to be a quality the public understands and expects in its public buildings? Among the premiated submissions only the Cordeau/Hopewell scheme - entry 023, and Chandler Kennedy/Merrick - entry 084, chose a more programmatic compositional form which deferred to the surrounding context.

There were no explicit program restrictions against a high rise solution but few competitors chose this form. This may be partly a consequence of the site configuration but more likely reflected a common skepticism regarding the working environment of the tall building. Yet many competitors who developed a low rise solution selected a typical office floor configuration and strung these modular units along a central spine somewhat in the manner of Hertzberger's Centraal Beheer Office Complex in Holland but lacking its integration and flexibility. Among these: entry 002 - Adamson Associates, entry 025 - Stinson Montgomery Sisam/Byfield Langford, entry 006 - J. Michael Kirkland/Boigon Armstrong, and entry 086 - Neish Owen Rowland and Roy.

On the lighter side -- some quotations by the Jury can be reported. On the architects' predilection to invent problems: "first they build a fine bridge, then design the river." On the use of large quantities of glass sky lighting: "it's pure Stirling, but we all know the cost of silver."

Two submissions emerged as front runners; upon further detailed evaluation, the Jury concluded that no 3rd or 4th prize be given but that the list of merit awards be extended to include those submissions representative of an approach which had been carried through with ski II and conviction. The 1 st and 2nd awards were judged to be very closely matched although neither received a clear score on both the symbolic and functional aspects.

IMPORTANT NOTICE : Unless otherwise indicated, photographs of buildings and projects are from professional or institutional archives. All reproduction is prohibited unless authorized by the architects, designers, office managers, consortiums or archives centers concerned. The researchers of the Research Chair on Competitions and Contemporary Practices in Architecture are not held responsible for any omissions or inaccuracies, but appreciate all comments and pertinent information that will permit necessary modifications during future updates.info@ccc.umontreal.ca